Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. (Read 119966 times)

Not this shit again... If you want to discuss the pros/cons of blocksize/segwit/bu/classic/xt/abc/whatever, take it elsewhere. This thread was about development and activation of segwit2x. I know it's hard to believe that you can discuss one without the other but that's bullshit - you just want to talk about what your current gripes are and find a way to link it into this discussion. I think this thread has run its course and will only be useful in 3 months' time again.  I can't even be bothered moderating posts that stray from it so I'll just lock it.

That's right, in the end you can't cheat math and physics.

Layer 2 in the end still depends on Layer 1.

Greg is pretending that by splitting your car's fuel tank in two, it'll somehow give you 100 times the fuel in the future.

The flaw in Greg's logic becomes glaringly obvious when you simply extend it a few times, Greg is basically saying if you build Layer 3 on top of Layer 2, then build Layer 4 on top of Layer 3, etc, you can end up processing all transactions on the planet with Raspberry Pi on Layer 1.

Not going to happen, the transactions data still have to be stored somewhere, someone still have to verify it, and then we're back to square one: 1. Who can we trust, 2. Why would we trust them, and 3. Why would those people want to verify transactions for us.

The flaw is so obvious, yet they're pushing it like mad, and then you have this bankers funded corp kicking away all the Bitcoin senior devs who noticed the flaw instantly and spoke against it. This whole SegWit bullshit just stinks like a classic See Eye Aye op to poison Bitcoin.

SegWit share the same logic of a ponzi scheme, it'll never survive any fair competition and is doomed to fail, that's why the miners don't give a shit about SegWit, the problem has always been the block size limit.

If there is one fatal flaw in Bitcoin, it'd be the 10 minutes confirmation time, most people have very short attention span and they just don't have that kind of patient, if Bitcoin is to dominate the world it needs to confirm transactions within 1 minute. Bitcoin would be over 10 times more popular if it was designed around a 30-60 sec confirmation time frame.

The 10 minutes window gave excuses to idiots like Adam and Greg to sell nonsense, and that's where we are today.

That can't be right; Luke Jr told us that this was all to delay segwit.

and it's official:

BIP91 ACTIVATED!
Non-SegWit signaling blocks will be orphaned.


https://www.xbt.eu/

My bad, I didn't realize that we were ignoring generally accepted meanings of the words we use and just making up things as we go along.  


Meanwhile, in the real world...
"facts" are objectively provable
and
things that are "speculative" are subjectively open to interpretation (and quite literally the exact opposite of facts).



Edit: I get the feeling that people like you are the reason that, in the last decade, "literally" has become its own antonym. 

BIP 91 activation is just around 30 minutes from now (3 blocks). It is going to be fun. Any block, which is not signaling BIP 141 will be rejected, and the last time I checked, Canoe Pool was still not signaling BIP 141.

==> this is in fact a fundamental thinking error.  The fact of splitting up the system in 2 layers that can accomplish transactions changes a priori ZILCH to the market pressure, which is fundamentally the "demand for transaction" and the "artificial or resource-limited scarcity" in front of it.

Greg is absolutely right that bitcoin's economical model is *fundamentally* flawed if its intend is to become a decentralized and fluid payment system (but maybe it is not flawed to become something else, like a speculative vehicle for financial institutions, or a reserve currency for sleazy business or the like).  I outlined this obvious flaw already several times, and most probably Greg with all his math knowledge, saw that easily too.  The very fact that bitcoin's security and consensus decision power depends on Proof of Work (which is in fact a proxy of "proof of wasted economic value") means that the bitcoin system, if it becomes valuable, has to waste a lot of value.   So, essentially, as a whole, bitcoin is a "zero sum game with a big value leak" at first sight: there's net value flowing out of bitcoin's into wasted heat.   That's not necessarily negative: in as much as bitcoin's system also *produces* economical value (for instance, by fluidizing economical interaction that wouldn't have taken place without it), the value creation of bitcoin can overcome its wasting.  For the moment, this is maybe only the case in dark markets where bitcoin did open economical opportunities that weren't possible in the classical fiat system, but right at this moment, my guess is that bitcoin is net wasting a lot of value.

This has to come from somewhere.   There are two sources of "taxes" that finance the wasting of resources:
- inflationary pressure
- fees

Up to now, and most probably in the coming decade, the main financing of the wasting in bitcoin has come from inflationary pressure: coin creation.   That's a pretty obvious and stable system.  But one of the cornerstones in the bitcoin belief system is that at a certain point, inflationary pressure should stop.  This is a fundamental problem in the system but it is so deeply grounded in bitcoin's belief system that it cannot be altered.

So the problem is: once there's no inflationary tax any more, who's going to pay for the waste ?

Answer: the transactions.

==> and this is where Greg's 2 layer model doesn't make any sense: the waste tax is going to be paid by all transactions.  Those on layer 1 and those on layer 2.  And in order for this tax to be sufficiently high, these transactions have to be sufficiently scarce.  If those on layer 2 are too cheap, then everybody will run to layer 2, and layer 1 will be left without "market pressure" and hence without fees.

It doesn't matter what mechanism you use to build layer 2 on top of layer 1.  In the end, transactions, whether they are on layer 2 or on layer 1, have to become scarce enough that people will be willing to pay fees to get them. 

If layer 2 has a natural dependency on layer 1, layer 2 will just be a "block chain magnifier" of some sort.  If layer 2 is unlimited and can live on a very small layer 1, then you get EXACTLY THE SAME effect as unlimited blocks.

There's no difference whether the transaction happens on layer 1 or layer 2: in the end, you need a transaction to be scarce enough so that people pay fees for it, that end up being wasted with proof of work.

Imagine that the LN works out such, that you can do 100 transactions on average on LN for one transaction on the block chain.   Well, in that case, economically, that LN system is equivalent to a block chain with 100 MB blocks and no second layer.  The fees will be the same, the total mining income (to be wasted on PoW) will be the same.  There's no difference.

Most probably, Greg realized this.  1 layer or 2 layers, it doesn't matter.  The problems are the same.  In the end, transactions need to pay for the waste in proof of work, which is the ultimate security of the bitcoin system (and THAT is the other fundamental flaw in bitcoin).  And you need scarcity of these transactions to establish a fee market, whether that market is essentially on layer 1 or layer 2 doesn't matter.  If transactions are too fluid and cheap, the system will crumble in any case.  So you CANNOT allow cheap and fluid transactions, even if they are only cheap and fluid on layer 2.  Because they would crash the market on layer 1, unless you make that technically not so, which means the scarcity on layer 1 folds over to layer 2, and we're back to square one.

So what could Greg still say after realizing that the fundamental problem in bitcoin he discovered (correctly), was in fact not solved at all with a 2 tier network ?   Well, he could mumble something that doesn't matter in all this: the very small RESOURCE waste of the block chain.  Yes, next to the HUGE on purpose waste on proof of waste, there's a small but real resource waste on hard disks networks and so on.  This is why he leveraged this importance of Joe's node in his basement.  While Joe cannot afford $2000,- for his useless node in his basement, bitcoin is wasting a billion dollars or so on proof of waste by a centralized cartel of miners (also due to a fundamental flaw in bitcoin: remunerated proof of waste with economies of scale), but it is Joe's waste that is going to be the culprit, and the need for a second layer.  That's how he can save his face.

This whole circus is in fact the result of a failed solution to a fundamental problem of bitcoin, and the fact that the proponent most probably realized that his solution wasn't a solution to that problem, and hence needed another argument.

This is not a dictionary concept.  So, don't try to act as if facts are black and white, like math, especially when we are incorporating human renditions of facts. 

Hardly any human has access to perfect information, even though some persons may be more endowed in this arena than others, and maybe depending on the subject matter, too, so almost everyone has to infer a certain amount of information, even when it comes to facts.

I'm not sure that there's any English dictionary that would support that. 

I bolded your royal "we" above.  

By the way, there are facts and there is logic and there are conclusions that are derived from those.

Some facts are contested, and some facts are speculative, so I agree that a decent foundation in any informational post that asserts reliable conclusions will begin with a decent rendition of facts and maybe even acknowledging the extent to which some of the facts are contested or speculated.

So, yeah thanks for that talking point, newbie.  

LOL by now everyone knows you're one of the low information shill here.

If I am a newbie then you're a half developed embryo.

You know fuck all about Bitcoin, the technology, the economics and the politics, every time you open your mouth you sound like a whining moron and nobody gives a fuck about a moron's post count.

Stick to the facts or stfu.

In addition it appears that eloipool users (which includes antpool and eligius), the segwit commitment is only included once there are segwit transactions.

Bitcoin Core = 00002
Bitcoin Segwit2x = 00012
Bitcoin ABC (BTC1) = 00010

But ... patches exist ... so, we don't know.
And ... BIP91 is not recognize by 96% of the nodes (94 000 nodes).
https://bitcoincore.org/en/bips/

The 20000002 means they are signalling segwit.  The pools signalling 20000012 are signalling both segwit and BIP91.

I feel like I am asking a dumb question or I am confused because when I look at https://coin.dance/blocks, I see that in the last 144 blocks everyone is signaling segwit.  100%



In practice, what does the 10% bitcoin.com    20000002 mean?  And, how come it seems to conflict with the coin.dance information.

If  Bitcoin.com were truly signaling something that did not involve segwit, are going to get orphaned per BIP91?

or are they going to be able to hold back the 95% activation of segwit per BIP141?  currently, looks like 100% not 90%?

Or does the 10% of  20000002 mean something else?

Update : https://www.xbt.eu/ (144 Blocks)

Yeah, right.

For a newbie and your short posting history of nonsense, you surely have established yourself as a credible source for reliable information.

Oops I made a mistake in that statement. Bit 4 gets dropped entirely after segwit gets activated and is no longer used. There is no way of knowing who's going to enforce the hard fork component, only their NYA comment gives an indication of intent but isn't used for activation.

As for no commitment, some of those are the vocal pools against segwit. What it means is they're not currently mining blocks that can include segwit transactions. It will be a valid block even once segwit is locked in but won't include any segwit transactions if they do that. It also means less fees for them so I doubt they'll do that indefinitely, though they might happily sacrifice it just on principle. The players involved are certainly that way inclined...

They didn't "registering as 'No!'".
The site reads
and the site returns

You are right, signalling bit 4 has no point now. I wonder though what you think about Antpool, GBMiners, Kano CKPool and Slush registering as "No!" under the Witness Commitment heading at xbt.eu